Do I have a problem with the name, no I personally don't.
Do some other people, sure and it's understandable.

If the DC mayor doesn't want the "Redskins" to be in DC because of the name, OH WEEEEELLLL.. DC Area MD is here and DC Area VA is here.

If they do change it though, I 100% want Warriors. I mean, changing it to Warriors during the "No-QB" years would've been the dumbest thing to do but now that we have a playoff team it would make sense.

I'll come down to $$$$. The REDSKINS franchise is one of the most expensive in sports worldwide. Changing the name and getting the new one back to what the REDSKINS brand name is today will take million$$$. Don't see that happening.

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:........there's even a school on a reservation that has the name "Redskins" in it. 90% of native Americans aren't offended by it. Its a name of praise for a football team. The "Browns" better be getting just as much heat from all this.

Lastly, we will riot it they f#@! with our name. Good luck in the election

dude, the browns were named after their owner, Paul Brown, not brown people.

That is true but in todays world, it means nothing. Only the connotations of the name mean anything. And oh yea, there are those who are looking to see their names in the paper that will start anything. Wanna Be's

"Courtney Tucker" a contributor on Bleacher Report posted this comment I thought was great. Hope its ok to quote someone else's work on here:

"I understand today’s sensitivity, but historical context is needed. The term "redskins" was descriptive, not racist in nature. Native American skin is not red at all, but may be perceived to be darker than "white" skin or lighter than "black" skin, that is, brown or tanned. The Eastern woodland Native Americans of the 1740-1790 era often used the color red to project strength, bravery or value. Warriors would paint their faces and chests red before battle to indicate and reinforce their courage. They would even paint captives red to show their value, whether they were "white" captives or from other tribes. British colonists referred to attacking warriors as "redskins" not as an insult, but because that is what they saw coming at them during a battle. Instead of the “redcoats are coming,” the alarm was the “redskins are coming.” I believe the origins of the team name as adopted in Boston explained that the desire of the team was to honor Native Americans by reflecting their strength, resolve and courage in the team’s football players. The name was intended to be flattering, not insulting. It is not racist. Intent is important. The team must take care not to use feathers or headdresses that have religious or ceremonial implications for Native Americans as other teams have done. I see no reason why the name cannot continue to be used, carefully and respectfully. If it must be changed, I suggest a George Washington era related name like Minutemen or Colonials, if others who may have those names trademarked agree. We would have to rewrite some of the fight song, however."

Obviously there are no more problems or issues with the management and government of DC including all of its public services for a Major to shift his attention from those IMPORTANT issues to ... the name of an NFL franchise???!!!

Having said that ... I wold like to keep the name for many reasons, including the fact that the name is NOT racist as some imply and also due to respect for tradition. HOWEVER, may I remind all of us that our names was BRAVES many years ago?

I would not be upset if we went back to become the Washington Braves with the same logo.

Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

Redskin in Canada wrote:Obviously there are no more problems or issues with the management and government of DC including all of its public services for a Major to shift his attention from those IMPORTANT issues to ... the name of an NFL franchise???!!!

Having said that ... I wold like to keep the name for many reasons, including the fact that the name is NOT racist as some imply and also due to respect for tradition. HOWEVER, may I remind all of us that our names was BRAVES many years ago?

I would not be upset if we went back to become the Washington Braves with the same logo.

Washington Warriors or Washington Hogs isn't bad either. We were the Boston Braves back then. The "double b" had a nice ring. Hogs is pretty cool...its already widely associated with the Redskins.

But then obese people are going to flip out lol.

Trying not to offend anyone IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Again, I'll keep deferring to Courtney Tucker's comment on Bleacher Report. She is the only one who gave a truly historical context of the name; red warrior face paint...not skin tone. THEIR SKIN ISN'T EVEN RED!! WTF???

Redskin in Canada wrote:Obviously there are no more problems or issues with the management and government of DC including all of its public services for a Major to shift his attention from those IMPORTANT issues to ... the name of an NFL franchise???!!!

Having said that ... I wold like to keep the name for many reasons, including the fact that the name is NOT racist as some imply and also due to respect for tradition. HOWEVER, may I remind all of us that our names was BRAVES many years ago?

I would not be upset if we went back to become the Washington Braves with the same logo.

Washington Braves wouldn't be the end of the world, especially since all real Redskins fans would go on using Skins and Redskins as a nickname.

But I like most see this movement to change the name as insulting, a complete waste of time, and shameless self-righteous/self-promotion on the part of the people doing the grandstanding. They should take care of the disorder in their own lives instead of preaching on a subject where they are ignorant.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

Redskin in Canada wrote:Obviously there are no more problems or issues with the management and government of DC including all of its public services for a Major to shift his attention from those IMPORTANT issues to ... the name of an NFL franchise???!!!

Having said that ... I wold like to keep the name for many reasons, including the fact that the name is NOT racist as some imply and also due to respect for tradition. HOWEVER, may I remind all of us that our names was BRAVES many years ago?

I would not be upset if we went back to become the Washington Braves with the same logo.

Washington Braves wouldn't be the end of the world, especially since all real Redskins fans would go on using Skins and Redskins as a nickname.

But I like most see this movement to change the name as insulting, a complete waste of time, and shameless self-righteous/self-promotion on the part of the people doing the grandstanding. They should take care of the disorder in their own lives instead of preaching on a subject where they are ignorant.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Obviously there are no more problems or issues with the management and government of DC including all of its public services for a Major to shift his attention from those IMPORTANT issues to ... the name of an NFL franchise???!!!

Having said that ... I wold like to keep the name for many reasons, including the fact that the name is NOT racist as some imply and also due to respect for tradition. HOWEVER, may I remind all of us that our names was BRAVES many years ago?

I would not be upset if we went back to become the Washington Braves with the same logo.

Washington Braves wouldn't be the end of the world, especially since all real Redskins fans would go on using Skins and Redskins as a nickname.

But I like most see this movement to change the name as insulting, a complete waste of time, and shameless self-righteous/self-promotion on the part of the people doing the grandstanding. They should take care of the disorder in their own lives instead of preaching on a subject where they are ignorant.

What would happen to the fight song though.

Not to be insensitive, but this debate reminds me of those GEICO commercials where they say "So easy a Caveman could do it." And, a "Caveman" gets offended.

When has anyone met a real Native American who is offended by this? If anything, it makes the name endearing when you have millions of Americans calling themselves a part of Redskin nation.

BTW - how do we know that Redskin refers to race? From what I understand the Redskins were first the Boston Braves, who played at Braves Stadium. They moved to play in the Red Sox stadium in Boston, and then changed their name to the Boston Redskins. Where do we get this idea that the word "Red" didn't come from Red Sox, rather than the skin color of a Native American??

I can't stand fake controversies. It's not meant to be offensive. People consider native americans as a sign of 'bravery' and 'tribal brotherhood'.....you don't hear fat people complaining about the NY Giants.

It's documented that Redskin for the team originally was a reference to war paint. I don't think people are mad about the original intentions — only that now "Redskin" is perceived as a racial slur.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

I say to political correctness...Its offending to me to call politics "correct" when it is FAR from it.... Lets strip ALL team names that have ALL notion of Native Americans....lets strip ALL casinos of their names and then let them piss and moan that they aren't recognized WHAT SO EVER and see how THAT sits.

Last edited by RG3peat on Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan